Author Yiyun Li argues that Eileen Chang’s later writing suffered more for personal reasons than because of the Communist Revolution:

…As I reread Chinese writers of the first half of the twentieth century, I confront similar complexities: What if the Communist Revolution had never occurred? Shen Congwen would have continued to produce masterpieces, rather than suffering a breakdown due to the crushing political pressure of the time, as he did in reality, and giving up fiction altogether. His is the most tragic loss for Chinese literature of the past century, at least in my very biased view as a great admirer of his work, and perhaps in the opinions of the editors of The Guardian, who included him a few years ago among a list of ten translated writers who should be read more widely. Lu Xun, on the other hand, would not have been codified as a literary god. He was a fine storyteller, but ideology was a magnifying glass that swelled his artistic merit beyond reason.
Like Shen Congwen, Eileen Chang was a writer censored by the Maoist government; however, her trajectory as an artist was far less influenced by their shared historical context. (I am very aware that this perspective will be frowned upon by many of her followers, and indeed Chang has more loyal followers than perhaps any other Chinese author.) …

Simon Elegant guesses what was behind the new rules for journalists:

…Actually, I think it’s an interesting reflection of the way, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, that foreign reporters actually function as an aid to central government efforts (or perhaps I should qualify that even further and say efforts by some parts of the central government in Beijing) to control the excesses of provincial and local offcials in areas such as corruption, the rape of the environment etc. Beijing is always play a complicated and delicate game with both its own media and the foreign media. In this case, I think they’d rather not have had the criticism which might have accompanied a decision to revert to the bad old days. But I don’t think that was a major factor: if it was really important, as they have demonstrated on many occasions in the past, there would have been no hesitation in going back to the old days. But I think on balance, it was calculated that as foreign reporters are an unavoidable evil, they might as well be put to some use…

A decree makes new freedoms permanent, but some limits remain:

BEIJING - China took a further step toward opening itself to the world, announcing Friday that an easing of restrictions on foreign journalists enacted for the Olympics would become permanent.

Premier Wen Jiabao signed the new decree, which took immediate effect, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao at a late-night news conference.

Under the new regulations, which had been anticipated by journalists, foreign reporters would not be required to get government permission to travel within the country or to interview Chinese citizens.

“This is not only a big step forward for China in opening up to the outside world, it is also a big step for further facilitating reporting activities by foreign journalists,” Liu said…

What will come of meetings between Wikipedia and Chinese leaders? An interview with founder Jimmy Wales, and a news summary:

Last week, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had a meeting with Cai Mingzhao, Vice Director of China’s State Council Information Office - the government body whose “Internet Management Division” is in charge of censoring online content. They discussed Jimmy’s concerns about censorship. No deals or agreements were made, but Jimmy tells me that the meeting has opened a channel of communication and dialogue between the Wikipedia community and the Chinese government.

Many Chinese wikipedians and bloggers first found out about the meeting from the State Council Information Office’s own website, which posted the picture above along with a brief text that said only: “On the afternoon of September 25th, the State Council Information Office Vice Director Cai Mingzhao received the founder of the American Wikipedia, Mr. Jimmy Wales. Liu Zhengrong of the Fifth Division and others also accompanied the meeting.” (The Fifth Division is in charge of the Internet. Liu famously told the world in 2006 that Chinese Internet censorship is no different than what goes on in the West and most other countries.) …

What it’s like to be arrested by the Chinese government:

“The Chinese government was ruthlessly effective in quashing dissent during the Summer Olympics, but few noticed until a group of scruffy American activists were arrested, jailed, and deported for flying the Tibetan flag outside the Bird’s Nest stadium. In an exclusive interview, John Watterberg and Jeremy Wells describe their ordeal at the hands of a repressive regime. …
‘I realized that they, the interrogators, could not comprehend a student branch of an organization; that a group could act independently. We had to explain the concept of peaceful protest. They thought we were all part of a huge conspiracy to destroy the Chinese government.’”

Blogger Stryde’s headline-making post, with evidence of an Olympic cover-up:

“I believe that these primary documents, issued by the Chinese state, directly available from China by clicking on the links above rise to a level of evidence higher than “allegation”. …
From the minute I pressed the publish button on this blog, the clock is ticking until Kexin’s true age is wiped out of the Baidu cache forever. It is up to you, the folks reading this blog, to take your own screenshots and notarize them by publishing them…”

Rebecca MacKinnon explains that most foreigners — including journalists — don’t understand the extent of Chinese censorship:

“Beijing’s Internet censorship hit global headlines recently, when foreign journalists in town to cover the Olympics discovered their access to well-known overseas Web sites was blocked. Yet while the government has now unblocked some of those sites, those journalists shouldn’t think the broader problem is solved. Censorship of ordinary Chinese people’s electronic communications within China has changed little. Visiting reporters just aren’t noticing because these forms of censorship relate to Chinese-language content they’re not familiar with, hosted on Web sites and services located on computer servers inside China, which foreigners generally don’t use…”

HKU’s Rebecca MacKinnon writes a very informative post on the forms of censorship most foreigners miss:

“Repeat after me: ‘The Great Firewall is only one small part of Chinese Internet censorship.’

My Op-ed in today’s Asian Wall Street Journal, The Chinese Censorship Foreigners Don’t See, is an effort to get people to get beyond what Internet scholar Lokman Tsui describes as a Western fixation on ‘Iron Curtain 2.0’ which blinds most Western observers to the realities of the Chinese Internet - and to China more generally, for that matter.

Back in June I wrote a post explaining how we need to get beyond the “wall” metaphor in order to understand Chinese Internet censorship properly. People at this year’s Chinese Internet Research Conference suggested “Net Nanny” or even “Hydroelectric Management” are better metaphors for how speech is controlled on the Chinese Internet. But they’re just not as sexy-sounding somehow, and lack the same nifty Soviet-era-with-Chinese-flavor overtones.”

China has not approved a single one of 77 protest requests for its three designated venues, and has even detained some applicants immediately:

“BEIJING — Chinese authorities have not approved any of the 77 applications they received from people who wanted to hold protests during the Beijing Olympics, state media reported Monday.

The official Xinhua News Agency said all the applications were withdrawn, suspended or rejected. Rights groups and relatives have said some applicants were immediately taken away by security agents after applying to hold a rally, prompting critics to accuse officials of using the plan as a trap to draw potential protesters to their attention…”

In Kunming, American missionaries get stripped of their Bibles.

“BEIJING — Chinese customs officials confiscated more than 300 Bibles on Sunday from four American Christians who arrived in a southwestern city with plans to distribute them, the group’s leader said.

The Bibles were taken from the group’s checked luggage after they landed at the airport in the city of Kunming, said Pat Klein, head of Vision Beyond Borders. The group, based in Sheridan, Wyoming, distributes Bibles and Christian teaching materials around the world to “strengthen the persecuted church,” according to its Web site.

The group arrived in China on Sunday and had intended to distribute the Bibles to people in the city, Klein told the AP in a telephone interview while still at the airport.

‘I heard that there’s freedom of religion in China, so why is there a problem for us to bring Bibles?’ Klein said. “We had over 300 copies and customs took all of them from us.” …

The officer, who would only give her last name, Xiao, denied confiscating the Bibles. She said authorities were just ‘taking care’ of them and provided no further details.”